People v. Palato CA2/3

Filed 2/18/25 P. v. Palato CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B334957

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA094450 v.

JESSE JAMES PALATO,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Darrell Mavis, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

George Gascón, District Attorney, Grace Shin and Cassandra Thorp, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________

A jury convicted Jesse James Palato of sex crimes arising out of his online communications with young boys via the Facebook social media application. Palato filed a motion to vacate the convictions under Penal Code section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(2).1 Palato asserted he could produce newly discovered evidence of his actual innocence that requires vacating the convictions as a matter of law or in the interests of justice. The People did not file a written response to the motion, but a prosecutor orally opposed it at the hearing. The trial court summarily granted Palato’s motion, stating it did so because the People did not file a response or express an intention to do so. On appeal, the People assert the trial court erred because there is no authority requiring them to file a written response to a motion under section 1473.7. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting the motion and remand the case for the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The convictions The People charged Palato with annoying or molesting a minor (§ 647.6, subd. (a)(1)); contacting a minor with the intent to commit a sexual offense (§ 288.3, subd. (a)); attempting to arrange to meet a minor for lewd purposes (§§ 664, 288.4, subd. (a)(1)); and engaging in annoying or molesting conduct with an adult, believing that the adult is a minor (§ 647.6, subd. (a)(2)). Before trial, the court dismissed the section 647.6, subdivision (a)(2) count on the ground that it was not timely charged. However, the court allowed the People to present